All well and good. And no particular argument (more to come...).

But, having said that, why then all the contemporary rush to abandon all this “emotion”? All this connection to symbols? All the idea of putting the self forward in any manner at all?

Why the stark black canvases of Ad Reinhardt and Mark Rothko? Why the blank white ones of Rauschenberg? Why the manic post-war concrete poetry? Why the anti-poetry poetry movement? Why fragmented narratives? And why, then, the failure of everything in the midst of blossoming success? Why that stunning conundrum? Answer me THAT, Batman!

Joseph asks, “Remove the labels of things and what are we left with?!”

Keep sticking labels on things and what do you make of them, I ask. You can’t see them for what they are after a while...can you?

Reinhardt, Rauschenberg, Rothko, the others, all wanted to strip things bare, see everything new, reject all the old “visions” because of where those had led us. Not for themselves alone, not selfishly. For everyone. Because they were artists.

An important distinction.

Has the work been completed? Does it need to be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Reinhardt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_poetry#Post-war_concrete_poetry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-poetry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rauschenberg

Possessor of Paul Newman eyes. Author of the straightforward & strange. “Women zai shuo ba.” Be useful; share what you can; help others always. Doctor of texts.